L42/Enforcer Ammunication

Hello

Thank you. Especially to Bruce von Oz for quite informative and quick response (s).

There are simply a number of hints for the use of .308 Win. 168 grain Match ammunition. Especially the Federal "Gold Medal" Label. This is an example of my "ambiguous" view.

And here in Switzerland there is only a few 7.62 mm NATO ammunition types available. Since many years, this ammo is not as important for Military Repeaters as it is in other countries. Not enough to have a real choice. So I certainly cannot check out the accuracy potential of my rifle. As a Non-Reloader, by the way...

General complaints: Did a typical problematic problem arise when using a unsuitable .308 Win.-ammo? Was there a characteristic sign on a case, for example ?

A .308 Win.-Lapua load has been heard to pose a serious problem, years ago. What type of load was that, please ? Asked because of the relevance of the Lapua ammo-Products here.

Thank you.

Best regards
Enfield Enforcer

The trouble is, too, beside the ammo question, I don't know which is the barrel-diameter in my good old Nr 171. Amazingly and surprisingly here is the correct barrel gauge to measure hard to find. And really expensive. I have to buy one myself, i think. So i have to consider a not to powerful load as well as the barrel-diameter, too.

So, what about your ammo experience, please ? 10 voices for Federal Gold Medal 168 gr would be more precious than 2 for an here unavailable 7,62 mm-Nato-round.

Thanks !

Greetings
Enfield Enforcer

I put GGG 155grn 7.62 though my L42 barrel which seems to perform well enough.

Thanks Michael Doyne,

maybe i can find the GGG stuff here in CH. There was a type of ammo recently within a traders offerings.. . I have to visit them anyway, so let's see.

I've found until now only 3 real 7,62 mm-offerings in CH. Two of them were quite special offerings from MEN in 1995 around - which disappeared"of course" - and the 3. one is the already discribed 185 gr Lapua Sniper-Ammo. Where more concrete info is still very welcome :-) Its Box No.3 from above in the picture.

Have a nice evening altogether.

Greetings
Enfield Enforcer

Enfield Enforcer every one of those boxes in your photo is over the limit of the L42.
Micheal Doyne you are pushing the friendship as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Remember that the chambers in military 7.62 calibre are VERY different to 308 (for example there is 0.013" difference in headspace)

7.62 can be safely used in a 308 but you should not use 308 in a 7.62.

Denken Sie daran, dass sich die Kammern im militärischen Kaliber 7.62 SEHR von 308 unterscheiden (zum Beispiel gibt es einen Unterschied von 0,013 Zoll im Kopfraum).
7.62 kann sicher in einem 308 verwendet werden, aber Sie sollten 308 nicht in einem 7.62 verwenden.

---

This illustration was unfortunately created by someone who doesn't understand that the pressure levels quoted are in 2 different systems of measure.

Enforcers/L42s ect are not MAG58s - sniping and target rifles are not headspaced at the high end of the chamber spectrum - what would the point be of a sniping or target rifle with excess headspace or an extra long throat?

.303 British and .308Win nominally have the same H2O case capacity (56grains of water).

.303 British 174gr MkVIIz was loaded to 2440+/-40fps
.303 British 175gr MkVIIIz was loaded to 2550+/-40 fps

MkVIII was cleared for use in rifles

Federal GM Match 175gr is loaded to a nominal 2600fps which is at the high end of the MkVIIIz velocity window.

There is no "free lunch" - 2 projectiles of the same weight loaded to the same velocity in the same case capacity are not magically dramatically higher in pressure.

I know a number of people who are running Federal GMM 168gr in their L42s and Enforcers.

personally I am running 165gr Hornady interlocks over 42gr of IMR4895... safe in my rifle ect ect.

Lee Enfield please explain to me why then No4s converted to use the NATO 7.62 144gn rounds had to be reproofed for civvie range use. The failure rate was not small.
Yes Mk8 was cleared for rifle use in an emergency only. I would not say that 2600 FPS was a moderate pressure increase over 2440 fps pressure.
I am also aware the 308 case will not show pressure signs like the 303 case does in the same actions.
I have seen a range rifle front locker bolt failure in a rifle built for 144gn NATO using moderate 175gn loads. The No4/L42 is not a heavy 308 it is a light weight 308 stop gap rear locker outfit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

.303 British and .308Win nominally have the same H2O case capacity (56grains of water).

.303 British 174gr MkVIIz was loaded to 2440+/-40fps
.303 British 175gr MkVIIIz was loaded to 2550+/-40 fps

MkVIII was cleared for use in rifles

---

I wonder if you could explain why the 303 has come into the equation ?

We are comparing 7.62 and 308, and the 7.62 cases, which are externally dimensionally the same as 308, are heavier, therefore the walls must be thicker and the volume is less. Try measuring the volume of water held by bth cases. I think you will find a difference.[COLOR="black"]

---------- Post added at 09:26 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Lee Enfield please explain to me why then No4s converted to use the NATO 7.62 144gn rounds had to be reproofed for civvie range use. The failure rate was not small.
Yes Mk8 was cleared for rifle use in an emergency only. I would not say that 2600 FPS was a moderate pressure increase over 2440 fps pressure.
I am also aware the 308 case will not show pressure signs like the 303 case does in the same actions.
I have seen a range rifle front locker bolt failure in a rifle built for 144gn NATO using moderate 175gn loads. The No4/L42 is not a heavy 308 it is a light weight 308 stop gap rear locker outfit.

---

Not only did it have to be re-prooved to the 19 tonnes, but the NRA stipulated that if using the 'later' (heavier 175gr bullet) it had to be re-prooved again to 21 tonnes.

The NRA had banned the use of 7.62 No4s but following an 'uprorar' amended their policy as follows :



NRA Safety Notice re No 4 7.62mm Conversions
This is the current stance of the NRA safety warning which first appeared in the Summer NRA Journal:
Safety Notice
Enfield No 4 Rifle Conversions to 7.62mm

A safety warning concerning the use of Enfield No 4 Rifle actions converted to 7.62mm was published in the Summer 2010 Journal.

After further consideration of all factors influencing safety of these conversions and consultation with the Birmingham Proof Master, the following advice must be adhered to in respect of the use of Enfield No 4 conversions:

• Owners of Enfield No 4 actioned rifles converted to 7.62mm currently proofed to 19 tons per square inch are strongly advised to have them re-proofed to the current CIP standard (requiring a minimum mean proof pressure of 5190 bar) which allows the use of CIP approved ammunition with a Maximum Average Working Pressure (MAWP) of 4150 Bar.

A d E the No4/L42/clone in Ozz dosent have to be reproofed to use heavier projectiles it is in the buyer you are on your own in this .. People just don't know and wont be told that it is not a 308. The clones are not proofed at all.

It bemuses me that we are even having this conversation. Regardless of trying to quantify just how close to the strength limits of the No4 action we are getting using hot loads &/or heavy bullets as fodder for L42's & such like, it is quite clear that we are pushing the No4 action, & if there is even the slightest chance of ending up wearing your rifle's bolt in your eye socket why are we even considering it?